10 votes

Texas BIG game Hunting (Urgent for TX Convention, but just a theory)

I saw the thread on presidential electors below, but I felt this was worth another try. Sorry if this isn't well received due to "similar content" status but I have looked up the bylaws concerning presidential electors from Texas. (Electoral College.) I hope this information is not too late. If it is, maybe look into California. I have no clue whats happening there.

Texas is a big deal in the electoral college. They have 38 electoral votes. 7 presidential elections have been decided by fewer than 38 electoral votes, including 2 out of the last 3. In a close election, and I suspect this one will be, we can force a vote in the House of Representatives with those numbers. It would be the second time in history, and the first for President and not VP if Ive got it right. Who knows what happens? Even if Ron doesn't win there, maybe we get a positive effect from the event itself? Its hard to calculate something that unprecedented. If one of the two (obama/romney) win it would be Romney due to the Republican controlled house, and the republicans wouldn't be quite as enraged as they would be otherwise.

What is import about Texas is that it is a big one that is expected to go republican so that being an elector candidate would matter.

Check my research, then I have more comments in between and below the bars.

__________________
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPT...
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, the delegates from each Congressional District shall nominate one (1) Presidential Elector and such nomination shall be presented to the National Nominations Committee; additionally, the National Nominations Committee shall select additional nominees to bring to total number of nominees to the number allowed by law. Each such nominee for Presidential Elector, prior to the report of the National Nominations Committee, shall file with the Chairman of the National Nominations Committee an affidavit in writing as to his commitment to vote for the Republican Party’s nominees for President and Vice President. The report of the National Nominations Committee shall include only nominees who have so filed such affidavit. The report of the National Nominations Committee must include the nominees from the Congressional District who have so filed affidavits. The Convention shall then elect the Presidential Electors.
...
At the Biennial State Convention in presidential election years, there shall also be a permanent National Nominations Committee composed of one (1) delegate from each Congressional District, to be elected by caucus of the delegates in each such district, plus the chairman thereof, to be appointed by the State Chairman. The Chairman of the permanent National Nominations Committee shall convene the meeting of the committee two (2) hours after the start of the Congressional Caucus with a quorum being present. This committee shall report to the Convention nominations for National Delegates and Alternates, Presidential Electors, and National Committeeman and National Committeewoman, which nominations have previously been made in accordance with Rule Nos. 39 and 40, and sections 6 and 7 of Rule No. 38.
___________________

So I do believe it is possible to get our people in the right place. Here's the kicker.
_________________
Although presidential electors are generally expected to support the candidates in whose name they are chosen, 26 states plus the District of Columbia go one step further and attempt to bind their electors40 by one of several means: (1) requiring an oath or pledge or requiring the elector to cast a vote for the candidates of the political party he or she represents, all under penalty of law;41 (2) requiring a pledge or affirmation of support, without any penalty of law;42 (3) directing electors to support the winning ticket;43 and (4) directing electors to vote for the candidates of the party they represent.44 In addition, some state political parties require in their rules that candidates for elector make an affirmation or pledge to support the party nominees.

In its 1952 decision Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court held that it does not violate the Constitution for a political party, exercising state-delegated authority, to require candidates for the office of elector to pledge to support the presidential and vice presidential nominees of the party’s national convention.45 Specifically, the Court found that excluding a candidate for elector because he or she refuses to pledge support for the party’s nominees is a legitimate method of securing party candidates who are pledged to that party’s philosophy and leadership. According to the Court, such exclusion is a valid exercise of a state’s right under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides for appointment of electors in such manner as the state legislature chooses.46 In addition, the Court determined, state imposition of such pledge requirements does not violate the 12th Amendment,47 nor does it deny equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.48

    In Ray v. Blair, however, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of state laws that bind electors, and left unsettled the question of whether elector pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be constitutionally enforceable.

Indeed, in the view of many commentators, based on the text of the Constitution, its structure, and history, statutes binding electors and the pledges that electors make are likely to be constitutionally unenforceable. That is, according to some commentators, electors remain free agents who may vote for any candidate they choose.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPT...
_______________________

So the constitutionality of voting faithless as an elector when you have signed a pledge/affidavit or been bound by state law has not been determined. Some commentators believe the pledges/bindings are unenforceable.

I'll say this in conclusion: If someone becomes an elector and votes his conscience in the example of Texas, I would love it, but if he voted in good faith I wouldn't hold it against him. It would take some serious cajones to make a vote that changes an election on constitutionally ambiguous grounds.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It has precedence:To date,

It has precedence:

"To date, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

No one was punished nor ever has been punished in the long history of voting as independent representatives - which they are suppose to be.

This year is also a special case. Both candidates the parties present could be ineligible to be elected president according to the Constitution - which is the highest law in the land, any other law not withstanding. Between now and the middle of December is a long time to think about that.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Lawrence D. Longley, an

Lawrence D. Longley, an Electoral College expert, predicted at a 1992 congressional hearing, "faithless electors...would likely proliferate in the instance of an election producing a very close electoral vote count." - http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionross4.htm

I believe faithless electors would proliferate in the instance of the next elections after a faithless elector(s) altered the outcome of the election or at the very least left the outcome up to the House. This would be GREAT imho. No longer could candidates use brainwashing through mainstream media outlets. Electors would be the ones running for office. Electors would have to win support. And there's just too many of them and too many non-celebrity political activists for them to control, demonize, or discredit.

Of course the other scenario is also likely. There could be a tidal wave of support for an amendment abolishing or modifying the electoral college.

In the former case, the founders' vision of the electoral system will have proven to be perhaps the most important concoction in the history of our democracy. In the latter, we would simply find that even the best laid plans of mice and men simply can go awry.

23

Good message. Lays the

Good message. Lays the reason for a representative Republic and not mass democracy again.

A mob democracy is a group of people without an elected leader or head to speak for them, so the media becomes the "talking head", which tells the mob what they think - since they can't possible figure it out for themselves, just being a mass of unorganized goo.

The people that control the media LOVE democracy without heads.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The House decided the elections of 1800 and 1824.

"In a close election, and I suspect this one will be, we can force a vote in the House of Representatives with those numbers. It would be the second time in history, and the first for President and not VP if Ive got it right."

In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr finished tied in the Electoral College. The confusion arose due to the old Electoral College system in which the person receiving the second most votes in the electoral college became Vice-President. Burr was supposed to finish second but he was ambitious and it caused problems. Eventually, Alexandar Hamilton threw his support to Jefferson. Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson politically but respected him personally. The slight led Burr to challenge Hamilton to the deadly pistol duel. Burr shot Hamilton dead in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804.

The election of 1824 is referred to as the "favorite son" election. Four candidates, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford, received electoral votes for President, although all ran as Democratic-Republicans in the era of "Good Feelings".

The Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 is sometimes confused with the elections of 1800 and 1824. Unlike those elections, it was clear that someone had received a majority in the Electoral College, but it depended on 20 disputed electoral votes in three states. (Fraud was committed by both parties.) The political compromise was that the Republican Hayes was recognized as the winner in exchange for the end of reconstruction in the South.

But suppose it is true that

But suppose it is true that you cannot change your vote if you have signed an affidavit pledge. What about VP? I have a sneaky suspicion that the pledge you would have to sign would have wording somewhat like that 'you will vote for the elected POTUS and VPOTUS nominee from the RNC.' But the VP was not elected. He was chosen. We could even more likely push for a Judge Napolitano or something to that effect in the VP vote.

23

Constitutional Convention wasn't pledged either

Nope, you can vote for who you want, and the vote is recorded as voted (possibly excepted two states). 158 times, and no one punished yet. And even if they could be punished - the vote is STILL recorded.

A pledge about future performance is not considered perjury and isn't worth the paper it is printed on. (Nor are oaths of office either). It also conflicts federal law and the intent of the constitution. It may be on the books in some States, but for 200 years and 158 electors, it's never been tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

The intent of the founders isn't for the electoral college to be a useless appendage. The intent of the founders is for the electoral college to use their best judgement and prevent usurpers from taking control of the Republic.

Even the Constitutional Convention was not sent there to write a new Constitution. It was sent there to fix the Articles of Confederation - and they worked in secret to do something else. In fact, the Articles of Confederation don't even provide for amendment the way they replaced it - the Articles were suppose to be "for perpetuity union" and required *every* State to change them - not the 9 states - (ie 3/4s), that the founders came up with for the new constitution.

Once in convention or college, the delegates ARE the convention. They vote, it isn't a direct democracy. A direct democracy isn't a Republic.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_purpose_of_the_Consti...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

great posttt!

great posttt!

Faithless elector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

No elector has ever bee punished for not voting as they were pledged.

But had any of these

But had any of these faithless electors actually signed an affidavit?

23